Dismissed

Rajeesh Mon.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2019WP(Crl.)/366/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by the husband seeking direction to police to trace and release his wife, who was alleged to be unlawfully detained. The Court found the wife had eloped voluntarily and was not unlawfully detained, rejecting the invocation of writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the police to trace, produce, and set free the alleged detenu was denied.

Rajeesh Mon.M Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

WP(Crl) 366 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶8

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶9

WP(Crl.).No.366 OF 2019

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

RAJEESH MON.M AGED 30 YEARS S/O.THAMPAN, MULAYOLI MEPRATH HOUSE, NHEKLI P.O., KUNDUVADI (VIA), PERINGOME VILLAGE, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670353.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINGOME POLICE STATION, PERINGOME P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670353.

¶16

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670001.

¶17

R1-3 BY SRI.K B RAMANAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(Crl) 366 of 2019

JUDGMENT

K.HARILAL, J.

The petitioner herein is the husband of the alleged detenu, and a male child, now aged 4 years, was born in the said wedlock. According to the petitioner, while they were living together, the alleged detenu was studying diploma course in Electronics and Mechanical Engineering at ITI, Kayyoor. On 26.8.2019 morning at about 9 am, she went to ITI by bus from the bus stop at Uzhichi. But she did not reach the ITI or come back to the house in the evening. On enquiry, it was learned that the alleged detenu is missing. Thereafter, no information was received from any corner, in respect of the alleged detenu. So, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the police. But, no effective steps have been taken to trace out the detenu. The petitioner reasonably apprehends that his wife is under the unlawful

¶24

¶25

WP(Crl) 366 of 2019

¶26

confinement of some unknown persons. The petitioner sought for a direction to the police to trace out the detenu, produce before this Court and set her free.

¶27

Earlier, the second respondent submitted two reports, dated 24.10.2019 and 6.12.2019, stating that on the complaint filed by the petitioner, the police registered a crime, under Sec.57 of the Police Act and conducted enquiry, as to the cause of missing of the alleged detenu. In the investigation, it is revealed that the detenu eloped with one Sooraj and she is living along with the said Sooraj. But, they could not trace out the detenu or the said Sooraj, inspite of their earnest efforts.

¶28

In compliance with the interim orders of this Court dated 31.10.2019, 13.11.2019, 25.11.2019 and 6.12.2019, the police traced out the detenu and produced her before this Court. We have interacted

¶29

¶30

WP(Crl) 366 of 2019

¶31

with the detenu. The detenu unequivocally stated before us that she eloped with the said Sooraj, as stated by the police and they were travelling and living together at different places till 10.12.2019. At last, while they were residing at Koyilandy, the police came there and took them into their custody. According to her, she is not under the unlawful detention of the said Sooraj and she eloped with him, on her own will and wish. She does not want to go along with the petitioner herein, to resume cohabitation with him. On the other hand, she wants to go to her mother's house. The second respondent submitted that the police registered a crime against the said Sooraj, under Secs 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and remanded to judicial custody.

¶32

In view of the statement made before us, we find that the detenu is not under the unlawful detention of

¶33

¶34

WP(Crl) 366 of 2019

¶35

the said Sooraj. She has the right to go and live in accordance with her own will and wish. The police registered a crime against the detenu also, under Sec.57 of the Police Act and Secs 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and the said proceedings will continue in accordance with law. There is no circumstance to invoke writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

Sks/11.12.2019

WP(Crl) 366 of 2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER AND NEENA A. ISSUED FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, PERINGOME DATED 12.2.2014.

¶48

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.293/2019 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION.

Rajeesh Mon.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeesh Mon.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibi Vs Aswathy

C.H.Ibrahim Vs M.K.Jisna

M.a.Ajeeb, Vs N.a.Khader Pillai

P.Anilkumar Vs Ajitha

Sebastian Chokkattu Vs the Appellate Tribunal for Safema

Jayan Vs Subadra